Leo is wrong about random mutation

[Scholar]

24 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, I disagree. I do think he was pointing to metaphysical bedrock. He almost always does that. But you could ask him yourself.

Okay I feel like I am literally going crazy. That's what I said! I said he was pointing to metaphysical bedrock, how are you now thinking I am saying the opposite.

24 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

When Leo says "randomness is just human ignorance", then he is referring to evolution. Evolution is a framework for describing, explaining and predicting reality. If we fail to predict something, we call it random (which used to apply to genetic mutation, but as I said earlier, today it's not as straightforward). But that is just a failure of humans, i.e human ignorance.

Precisely.

I am saying, randomness is a feature of existence, it is freedom, and I am explaining to you how freedom relates to will (function), how that happens in your own consciousness when you are being creative (having an intention (= Selection for Function) and having the mind roam/explore freely (ACTUALLY RANDOMLY/PATTERNLESSNESS)), how creating functional complexity in machine learning happens the same way and how evolution does it also the same way, and how it all relates to abstract infinity by access it through free exploration (which is patternless) and how the degree of freedom (patternlessness/randomness) actually relates to the type of complexities you can arrive at and how much time it will take to arrive at them.

This is significant, how can you not see this? Stop engaging in these meaningless word games. I am giving you something very specific here, that is different from what you heard before. Why can't you just admit that?

 

So no, it's not just human ignorance. It's not just "Oh we don't see the pattern but actually, there is a pattern!". You are missing the whole point of what I am saying. I am saying that the randomness/freedom is essential, it is actually it's own dynamic and property. And it is present even in a determinstic system, that's how deeply ingrained this is into the nature of reality. Set aside how counter-intutive this appears.

What Leo is saying is of course true, that scientists kind of take it all as random in almost moralistic sense. That there is no function to it. But actually, it is random, and there is a function, and the randomness is a necessary component to achieve the function. That's the beauty of the system.

If you replace the word "random" with freedom, and you actually grasp what total freedom, then you will see how this interrelates. The freedom is the lack of bias, and the lack of bias is necessarily patternless. And of course, not the whole system it free and lacks bias, but there are components that contain this freedom and lack of bias, and they are relevant and important for how reality manifests complexity and function.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Okay I feel like I am literally going crazy. That's what I said! I said he was pointing to metaphysical bedrock, how are you now thinking I am saying the opposite.

I think you are literally going crazy. In one moment, you say he is making claims specifically about evolution, and in the other you say he is making a more general claim about metaphysical bedrock. Metaphysical bedrock is of course way beyond evolution, way beyond humans using a framework to try to predict some behavior.

 

45 minutes ago, Scholar said:

So no, it's not just human ignorance. It's not just "Oh we don't see the pattern but actually, there is a pattern!". You are missing the whole point of what I am saying. I am saying that the randomness/freedom is essential, it is actually it's own dynamic and property.

If you think randomness is not simply a failure of human prediction (epistemological randomness) and is instead an innate property of reality (ontological randomness), then good: that is the real reason why you're talking past each other. And that is what I said from the beginning: if you mean something different by the word "randomness", then the disagreement is just a language game. Substitute "randomness" for some other word ("freedom") and then it's clear that you're talking about different things. Then Leo isn't "wrong" about randomness; he is just talking about a different concept than you are. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

@ScholarThis conversation is at a depth ,where there cannot be any ambiguity with the usage of words . Its confusing because you use 4-5 different words interchangeably (random,infinity, freedom, creativity,lack of bias, patternless), to convey a meaning and each of those words have completely different connotations.

You talk about us having disagreements or us being stubborn but there cannot be a disagreement if there is no real communication going on. Based on how you responded to me: 1) it seems you didn't get what I was saying and what I was trying to respond to  and 2) It seems that I didn't really grasp the true meaning you were trying to convey.

On my end I didn't try to debunk you or try to show how my viewpoint is better (in fact I haven't even introduced our own viewpoints on this - and the point of my example about the completely deterministic universe wasn't to introduce that as my viewpoint, but to show a possible model to answer one of your questions)

I think both me and Carl are coming in good faith and we are interested in understanding .

Now I think we should skip the part where we psychoanalyze each other and try to skip to the part where we talk about the subject matter.

 

Right now I am not even sure what is the exact thing you are trying to establish.So for clarification sake: what is the actual essential claim that is being made here? That infinity can only be accessed through randomness?

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

Just wanted to clarify, my position on the issue of randomness is not absolute. So I could be wrong. Decide for yourselves.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Francis777]

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Just wanted to clarify, my position on the issue of randomness is not absolute. So I could be wrong. Decide for yourselves.

what's led you to doubt yourself on this?

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Francis777 said:

what's led you to doubt yourself on this?

It's a complex issue and my consciousness of it is not direct enough.

[Francis777]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a complex issue and my consciousness of it is not direct enough.

do you plan on figuring it out? or not bothered?

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Francis777 said:

do you plan on figuring it out? or not bothered?

I'm not sure how solidly it can be figured out.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Francis777]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm not sure how solidly it can be figured out.

is that because your having a hard time pinning down exactly what randomness is? at the direct level like you said.

[Yimpa]

2 hours ago, Francis777 said:

is that because your having a hard time pinning down exactly what randomness is? at the direct level like you said.

Ask Peter Ralston ? 

[Scholar]

20 hours ago, zurew said:

@ScholarThis conversation is at a depth ,where there cannot be any ambiguity with the usage of words . Its confusing because you use 4-5 different words interchangeably (random,infinity, freedom, creativity,lack of bias, patternless), to convey a meaning and each of those words have completely different connotations.

You talk about us having disagreements or us being stubborn but there cannot be a disagreement if there is no real communication going on. Based on how you responded to me: 1) it seems you didn't get what I was saying and what I was trying to respond to  and 2) It seems that I didn't really grasp the true meaning you were trying to convey.

On my end I didn't try to debunk you or try to show how my viewpoint is better (in fact I haven't even introduced our own viewpoints on this - and the point of my example about the completely deterministic universe wasn't to introduce that as my viewpoint, but to show a possible model to answer one of your questions)

I think both me and Carl are coming in good faith and we are interested in understanding .

Now I think we should skip the part where we psychoanalyze each other and try to skip to the part where we talk about the subject matter.

 

Right now I am not even sure what is the exact thing you are trying to establish.So for clarification sake: what is the actual essential claim that is being made here? That infinity can only be accessed through randomness?

 

 

 

I have no time to babysit you guys through something that I have explained in a perfectly coherent and understandable way.

 

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you think randomness is not simply a failure of human prediction (epistemological randomness) and is instead an innate property of reality (ontological randomness), then good: that is the real reason why you're talking past each other. And that is what I said from the beginning: if you mean something different by the word "randomness", then the disagreement is just a language game. Substitute "randomness" for some other word ("freedom") and then it's clear that you're talking about different things. Then Leo isn't "wrong" about randomness; he is just talking about a different concept than you are. 

This language game you are playing is so irrelevant to me. I don't care. From what I have gathered, Leo does disagree with me on this, in the specific way I have been describing.

If Leo is not disagreeing with me he can come here and tell me that I misinterpreted his position (specifically on evolution), he is not doing that.

There is a substantive disagreement which you cannot see because I think you understand neither of our positions. You are like, understanding this on the most surface level possible, comparing individual words and their meaning. Try to put yourself in my shoes and think of how much of a waste of time it feels to me to continue trying to explain this to you.

 

 

My language isn't inprecise, I have defined every single word I was using in a very specific manner. I'm not vague whatsoever. You guys are just refusing to actually read what is being said. If you actually were good faith in this, you would quote specific sentences where you are confused about what I am saying and ask me to clarify specific words.

But you are not interested in doing that, and it makes no sense because I literally explained how I use the words multiple times.

Edited October 2, 2023 by Scholar

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

I have no time to babysit you guys through something that I have explained in a perfectly coherent and understandable way.

Sounds like you are more interested in posturing than getting your point across.

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

. If you actually were good faith in this, you would quote specific sentences where you are confused about what I am saying and ask me to clarify specific words.

Now this is getting very boring. You are hardcore focused on psychoanalysis rather than on the topic itself. You are derailing your own thread by talking about who has what motivation rather than focusing on the subject matter.

Making up narratives in your head and when someone doesn't understand you, you start posturing ,because your ego is probably so fragile that the possibility that what you are saying is incoherent or the possibility that you didn't explain yourself in a clear way is an impossibility for you.

 

I asked a very specific starting question and you replied with "I won't babysit you guys", and after that it somehow makes sense in your head to call us bad faith, even though you didn't engage with a very simple and very fair question that would obviously elevate understanding.

Im not interested in proving to you how im not bad faith so, im out.

Good luck to everyone else who will try to further engage with your fragile ego

Edited October 2, 2023 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

I have no time to babysit you guys through something that I have explained in a perfectly coherent and understandable way.

 

This language game you are playing is so irrelevant to me. I don't care. From what I have gathered, Leo does disagree with me on this, in the specific way I have been describing.

If Leo is not disagreeing with me he can come here and tell me that I misinterpreted his position (specifically on evolution), he is not doing that.

There is a substantive disagreement which you cannot see because I think you understand neither of our positions. You are like, understanding this on the most surface level possible, comparing individual words and their meaning. Try to put yourself in my shoes and think of how much of a waste of time it feels to me to continue trying to explain this to you.

 

 

My language isn't inprecise, I have defined every single word I was using in a very specific manner. I'm not vague whatsoever. You guys are just refusing to actually read what is being said. If you actually were good faith in this, you would quote specific sentences where you are confused about what I am saying and ask me to clarify specific words.

But you are not interested in doing that, and it makes no sense because I literally explained how I use the words multiple times.

You want to talk about ontological randomness and expound your cosmology around that, while Leo prefers to talk about epistemological randomness and leave it at the human level. If you want to call that a disagreement, sure. I just personally don't think of it as a substantial disagreement, because when you identify this conceptual distinction, you see that it's two different subject matters. On the other hand, if you had both disagreed on either ontic or epistemic randomness, then that is more of a substantial disagreement.

It's of course possible to enter a conversation with the assumption that it is a substantial disagreement, but then you can realize that you're mistaken once additional information is uncovered. I just intuited that from the very start of the discussion, and then we laid out the proof for why that is. If you want to still hold on to the idea that you're fundamentally disagreeing about the same subject matter, then sure, that is just a new case of difference in language games (from my perspective of course).

Edited October 2, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

On 10/2/2023 at 5:43 AM, Carl-Richard said:

while Leo prefers to talk about epistemological randomness

Actually I was refering to ontological randomness.

My best guess is that not one atom in the Universe is truly random. Humans just don't understand things well enough to know why that atom needs to be where it is and not elsewhere.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Actually I was refering to ontological randomness.

My best guess is that not one atom in the Universe is truly random. Humans just don't understand things well enough to know why that atom needs to be where it is and not elsewhere.

But you said "randomness is just human ignorance" 

But wait, you're saying there is no such thing as ontological randomness, and you're also saying that humans just suck at predicting reality. Doesn't that just leave you with epistemic randomness? (it being the only valid concept).

Edited October 4, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But you said "randomness is just human ignorance"

There are multiple ways to interpret what I said. Think about it deeper.

Humans ascribe randonenss to things they don't understand.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

Oh look, I’m the 100th poster!

Edited October 4, 2023 by Yimpa

[Scholar]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

But you said "randomness is just human ignorance" 

But wait, you're saying there is no such thing as ontological randomness, and you're also saying that humans just suck at predicting reality. Doesn't that just leave you with epistemic randomness? (it being the only valid concept).

The right question to ask Leo in regards to what I said is whether he thinks noise, patternlessness or entropy, is an essential aspect of evolution.

I made the case that it is, and that it is also essential in regards to creativity and machine learning.

 

Whether or not the noise, or patternlessness, is truly ontologically random is a different question, but that would be a secondary disagreement we would have, as I see randomness as a result of the Causeless Cause.

The way to realize this is to realize the ontological impossibility, in terms of linear logic, of different aspects of consciousness, like vision and color, sound and so forth. If you recognize the Causeless Cause in them, I think you can investigate "Free Will" and recognize it's nature as I described it, but not necessarily have the same conceptual framework I provided.

 

This realization I had years ago now, it just took me time to find the linearlistic language to specifically describe what I had realized. There is a sense of impossibility or incomprehensibility within existence that is absolute, but yet part of that is the fact that things are interconnected in such a way that reality is comprehensible. And by comprehensible, I do not mean "understandable in linear logical terms". This is part of comprehension, but even math I think cannot be truly understood only in strictly linear logical terms, even though it is an attempt to do so.

I think this goes into the territory of post-rationality. To a rationalist, randomness is irrational. It makes no sense, how could it make sense. But to me it's not irrational at all. It is a specific thing, like colors, and it is an aspect of infinity. And it is connected to the absence of bias.

What I realized and explained in this thread is how this aspect relates to evolution, creativity and machine learning.

 

There is also an interesting question to ask yourself, and that is: How do you create actual random numbers? This is a profound question. In nature you find, what you will see as illusory, unpredictability and entropy, patternlessness, randomness. How do you even get there? How is reality designed in such a way that this type of entropy is everywhere, and what deeper function does this have?

 

I can tell you, it's not random or abritrary that randomness is everywhere to be found in nature.

You guys want to handwave this away and say "Oh we just haven't found all the physical laws that show you how all of this works!", not realizing that the very physical laws partake in the emergence of this aspect, of this intrinsic patternlessness. Now, I am not entirely sure whether or not you can get the level of patternlessness without ontological randomness, but I am certain that, whether or not it is the case, that actual ontological randomness is the case.

If you do understand all the physical laws of nature, you will understand the importance of randomness.

 

Again, it's a tricky question. Where does the asymmetry of nature come from? Where does all the complex variety come from? This is not an easy task at all, especially if you don't have actual randomness. And of course, the Divine being efficient and all, it will just create actual randomness. It sees the benefits of this, so why wouldn't it?

 

This question of randomness has been fascinating me for more than 12 years, so I understand how unfathomable what I say can seem.

 

 

Here is what you cannot deny, and I want you to grasp how significant this is:

If you have a physical system, and you create random patterns within that system, given infinite time, all possible complexities within that system will be created.

If you do not have ABSOLUTE randomness, you will not get all possible complexities within the system. Grasp this! If there is even a slight amount of bias, it is not possible that all complexities will be manifested. You will have a partial view of infinity, necessarily.

There is a magnitude of significance to this that if you grasp, you will realize immediately how reality obviously has this ingrained within it. This is part of Self-Discovery, this is a necessary part of Infinity, this is Freedom, true boundlessness. This is how Infinity manifests itself, necessarily.

There are no ifs and buts about this. And really, you should recognize the genius of this, the utter brilliance of it. That alone should humble you and make you realize that, of course this is how reality works.

Freedom is equivalent to Infinity. Randomness is equivalent to Infinity.

 

You can also flip it: Randomness is what Infinity looks like from the perspective of a manifest being. This is what randomness is, you are just too blind to see Infinity within it.

Without randomness, there is no Potential. Potential is an openness, an ontological degree of freedom, to the Infinite.

So, when you have atoms moving randomly, they have the ontological potential to move in all directions. The actualization of one of those potentials necessarily is random, because it necessarily must be free for the ontological potential to exists. This is what you are too blind to recognize as necessary truth.

The actualization of all potential is complete and abstract infinity. The actualization of singular potentials is manifest existence, and from that perspective, freedom is necessarily random, actually and completely random. From the perspective of the Infinity, it is all just a unity of all potential.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Scholar

[Scholar]

Timestamped.

This is the perfect example. Kastrup thinks that, because it's basically impossible to create randomness artificially, and that we actually have to exploit direct randomness in nature itself, that this means that it is unlikely that the randomness is nature is actually random.

This is mindblowing, because it is the opposite of the correct conclusion. Because it means randomness is so ontologically unique that you cannot simulate it. Yet, does he believe that nature uses algorithms so things appear to be random and patternless, but are actually not random and patternless?

 

This is a failure of imagination, and a failure of consciousness. He has no awareness of Free Will as I described it, if he did have it, he would immediately realize that, the reason why computers cannot simulate randomness in a true sense, and how profoundly difficult it is to even make someone appear to be random, is that randomness is it's own ontological category, it cannot be "created" through manifest "artifical" means.

But nature is actually random and chaotic, this element does exist, it exists in your own consciousness! You are just too blind to see it.

 

Kastrup is truly a hypocrite here in that, he will go for simplicity in his idealism, but then somehow posit that nature is constructed in such a way that it somehow creates apparently random patterns when in fact he knows it is exceptionally difficult to create such random patterns, and that they will not occur unless we specifically design algorithms to achieve them, and even then, they fail to reach the patternlessness that is found all over nature, everywhere.

The truth is, Kastrup is a deluded rationalist, he cannot see past his small rational constructs. And I can relate to this, because over a decade ago I came to the same conclusions in regards to free will and randomness. Now I can recognize how profoundly blind and ignorant I was, and how utterly obvious the truth is.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Scholar said:

The right question to ask Leo in regards to what I said is whether he thinks noise, patternlessness or entropy, is an essential aspect of evolution.

1) I would deny that noise is actually random.

2) Noise destroys information. So you got a serious problem explaining how noise creates new useful functions in DNA. There exists a $10 million dollar prize if you can demonstrate how noise can be used to generate new information. Noise has never been shown to generate new information, noise destroys information. This is standard information theory.

3) Just because you add noise to a system to make it less rigid and less predictable does not mean that randomness is the mechanism that generates novelty.